March 24, 2007

I have started deleting all the comments of one of our most conspicuous commenters for reasons I am not going to discuss. I ask all of my commenters to take some extra care with your comments now. Don't be a troll and don't feed a troll. If you are a troll, I may target you for deletion next. If you feed a troll, you may soon find that your comment refers to a comment that has been deleted. Let's raise the level of discussion around here. I have many great commenters that I love having as my guests. Others are being destructive and need to stop. If you're someone I'm targeting for deletion -- and I'm deleting all your comments regardless of content -- you need to go away permanently. You are on notice that I consider you to be harassing me, and I will contact Blogger about your account if you do not desist.

126 comments:

Thank you, Ann. Excepting the same old tedious trolls, your comment section is one of the best because both sides of an issue are usually well represented. As a moderate (which means right-winger here in Madison), I appreciate reading the thoughtful comments of people who have a different point of view than mine. The trolls are unusually obsessed with you and this website.

1. I also think it was more than one person under one pseudonym -- perhaps a group of students.

2. As to the others, let them take a lesson and try to raise their game. I want debate and disagreement, but not clutter. The biggest problem with trolls comes when they just post way too much.

3. I can't delete accounts or bar people. That is controlled by Google. I can only delete comments. I don't like having to write to Google and I've never done it, though I have threatened to do it before. Unfortunately, it is my only other recourse. But this is my blog, and you commenters are guests. If I tell you to leave, you need to leave.

Thanks, Ann. I've been commenting less because who wants to deal with that crap? It's not debate. It is not discussion. It's subjecting oneself to unpleasantness for no apparent reason.

Please, take no offense, as I don't wish to subject you to anything dreadful. However, even people that disagree with Althouse and her loyal following civilly and rationally get treated like unwelcomed guests. Althouse has the right to delete the comments of whomever she pleases, but don't think that this is a fair forum for discussion. Anything that even slightly contradicts anything Althouse, or Palladian, or Sippican Cottage or Maxine Weiss says is mutilated to a bloody pulp.

Paulina: People are allowed to disagree here and do it all the time. There was serious abuse going on here that was driving out the best commenters. How is it you didn't see that? In any case, as my post indicates, I have not spelled out what pushed me over the line today, and I doubt that many of you know what it was.

Paulina: Palladian and Sippican Cottage do not comment here that much these days. And Maxine is likely to be soundly criticized by someone one day only to be highly praised by them the next day. That is true for many people here, myself included.

"Please, take no offense, as I don't wish to subject you to anything dreadful."

Sure you do, as your sarcasm makes perfectly clear.

But don't worry, toots. I won't break if I am subjected to unpleasantness from someone who has a different political philosophy from my own. However, if a site gets overrun by that sort of nonsense, then I probably just won't post on it. Pretty simple.

As some day it may happen that a victim must be found, I've got a little list—I've got a little listOf internet offenders who might well be underground, And who never would be missed—who never would be missed!There's the pestilential nuisances who write like trolls in blogs—All people who do flabby posts and make you think of frogs—All children who are up too late, IM-ing with their friends—All persons who in commenting, cause headaches like the bends—And all third persons who on spoiling nifty threads insist— They'd none of 'em be missed--they'd none of 'em be missed!

CHORUS. She's got 'em on the list—she's got 'em on the list; And they'll none of 'em be missed—they'll none of em be missed.

Paulina said..."[E]ven people that disagree with Althouse and her loyal following civilly and rationally get treated like unwelcomed guests."

I can't think of any examples that might support that claim. Although concededly, it depends on what you mean by "civilly and rationally": do you think that HDhouse, for example, disagrees "civilly and rationally"? What did you have in mind? Examples, please.

From where do such ugly voices arise? What hideous star serves as their guide?

It's like graffiti, the random f-word on a wall, at once degrading and demoralizing.

I'm glad you've done so, but sad you've had to. I try myself to be civil, but fail, certainly more often than I care to admit. Yet I do have a sense of shame for it. I see little of that remorse in such folk. Can't be fixed, save for deletion. What prevents their better growth remains a mystery to me.

I can't think of any examples that might support that claim. Although concededly, it depends on what you mean by "civilly and rationally": do you think that HDhouse, for example, disagrees "civilly and rationally"? What did you have in mind? Examples, please.

Maybe she has the following in mind. After Althouse insults Scott Lemieux for his consistently poor reading regarding a post he didn't write, Scott says

Um, when you're engaging in accusations about "bad readings" it would probably be useful to check and see who wrote the withdrawn post in question...

Well, Scott, I see a tiny little image that looks like this: d. I was under the impression that that was a picture of a tiny little prick, and I thought it was you. I'll take your word for it that I was wrong and that despite your loathsomeness, you've managed to find other little pricks who are willing to associate with you. I have corrected my post to indicate that it was not you. Now, have you corrected your vicious stupidity, you pathetic little man? 3:48 PM

"Anything that even slightly contradicts anything Althouse, or Palladian, or Sippican Cottage or Maxine Weiss says is mutilated to a bloody pulp."

Bullshit. I haven't been posting many comments here for several reasons. One is that there have been some personal issues in my family that have taken a lot of my time and energy to both read and write comments. Another is exactly the subject of this post. It's getting too hard to write anything here because it just gets washed away in a tidal wave of contentious logorrhea that issued from the keyboards of a couple of nasty, stupid people. When I do post, I often find myself writing negative, nasty things to these people, in some vain effort to answer their assault in kind. It's the sort of vitriol that just can't go unchallenged, but I am always aware that it's ultimately futile; what these entities lack in courtesy, basic humanity, debate skills, intelligence and simple grammar they make up for in sheer volume and tenacity. Eventually those of us who comment in good faith simply don't want to waste the energy so we stop commenting. This is the goal of these people. They do not want debate or discussion, they want to drive people away and shut the site down; this is analogous to people who come to lectures with which they disagree and start screaming and chanting the minute the lecturer begins to speak. It's a tactic familiar to infants throwing tantrums in department stores.

This has nothing to do with "disagreement". Frankly, the subjects that are most contentious are least interesting to me. I've never seen anyone who "contradicts" anything that I say get "mutilated into a bloody pulp" unless it's by me. I rarely comment on war or Bush related posts, partly because of the aforementioned logorrhea but mostly because I either don't know have an opinion myself or I just don't care. I suppose somehow I've become another evil right-winger in the overheated imaginations of some of our crusading commenters, and well, so be it. I obviously don't agree with everything Althouse or pretty much anyone else here writes (and what fool ever does?) but I also don't expect Pogo or Simon or Beth to assault me when I express that disagreement. Our differences are ideological or philosophical or practical but they're never over each other's basic humanity. Adults can disagree, even contentiously, and still maintain some basic respect for other people of good faith. This is an alien concept to the commenters here who are the problem.

Thanks for doing this, Ann. Hopefully we'll see the good things about the comments section return.

Ann--I am an irregular commenter here, and I have been turned off by the nature of the comments recently. I can remember when I first discovered your site, and how interesting I found the posts and debate here. It hasn't been that the comments have been consistently in opposition to many of your posts. The problem, and it's one that is seen all too often these days, is that the commenters find it necessary to ramp up the vitriol, accusations, offensive posture, character denigration, and so on. At times, it seems a calculated effort to drown out reasonable, sober discussion, or to drive away those with whom they disagree. The posturing has become very juvenile--lacking maturity, grace, and fair-minded reflection. Such self-absorbed prattle is ubiquitous today. What is rare is a place for eclectic fun, informed discussion, and reasoned debate--all things this site has been at times. Those whose behavior here force deletion won't be missed. They detract from the quality and appeal of your site, and add nothing positive to the atmosphere around here.

Some of us really are interested in genuine discussion. We don't get a fold-out sheet in the mail with a catechism to recite. We believe reasonable people can disagree about the war, about global warming, about abortion. Even about American Idol.

There are plenty of sites where you can get the approved dogma for whatever club you want to belong to. I'm grateful to Althouse for working to preserve this little corner of the world for something else.

but don't think that this is a fair forum for discussion. Anything that even slightly contradicts anything Althouse

Hardly. Being right-wing, I've disagreed with Althouse on numerous threads and never been beaten down. This is a fair forum for discussion, which seems to be a problem for the far Left. They don't want a venue where the sane Left and "radical" Right can share perspectives.

Dr. Swift (if I may address you thus), I do not think the problem was the sensitive soul of our proprietress. It simply fell out that the comments had become a recreation for the inmates of Bedlam. Mr. Hogarth's "A Midnight Modern Conversation" depicts the deliberations of the Roman Senate in the days of Cicero, or disputations in Plato's Academy, by comparison. Like any good hostess, the keeper of this forum has taken a care (belatedly, the uncharitable might say) for the comfort of her guests. Those who seek madness need not search far, but those who would preserve their sanity and good opinion of mankind thank the proprietress for her solicitude.

Awesome. I really love this blog and the fact that I've seen people in the comments pine for the days of discussing gay marriage shows just how much the comments section has changed. I would add that, for me, the extent to which I find myself in agreement with Democrat Ann Althouse means that I must have moderated my views.

Reality Check will not be missed. I regret every time I thought it was worthwhile to counter his comments.

What I have found frustrating is the hostility some left-wingers have for a site like this -- a site without a clear ideological bias, where the hostess as well as many of the commenters think for themselves. It's almost like Reality Check (and he's not the only one) are demanding that this blog be a hard-right, Bush-loving site. If things aren't black and white, one side or the other, they become more enraged.

What I hope other left-wing commenters will take away from RC's banishment is that most people here genuinely want to read their ideas, and, if they disagree, want to debate them respectfully. You don't need to be belligerent -- we won't think you're a "latte-sipping, Volvo-driving wimp" if you express yourself rationally.

Ann, you might want to take a look at Jon Weisman's DodgerThoughts (dodgerthoughts.com). He has a sidebar entitled "Thank you for not..." and then lists 10 rules, some of which don't apply, but many that could:

1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity2) personally attacking other commenters3) baiting other commenters4) arguing for the sake of arguing5) discussing politics6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively8) making the same point over and over again9) typing "no-hitter" to describe any no-hitter in progress10) being annoyed by the existence of this list

During the baseball season, it is not unusual for DodgerThoughts to get 600 comments a day. The discussion can get heated, but instead of showing off how tough and mean they can be, the rivalry expresses itself through two things: Facts, and humor. On its best days, Althouse is a site like that. Your core commenters are, I think, willing to do what it takes to make it even more like that.

Before we get too far into "cast not a single stone" rhetoric...i notice that a thread search/find of "hdhouse" pops me up under Simon and referenced later. Then there are a number of selfrightous postings the seem to take a holier than thou bent...something about brilliant posting being swallowed whole by swill from a few (a sin so bad no one dare mention by name)who disagree.

Good and open debate, disagreement, passion, whatever are defined here by Ms. Althouse which is fine. Its her football and actually its her backyard to play in. The operating word, however, is "hers"....

What I read here by some is "Yes Ann, it is your football, and the rules of the game ..well let us define them for you as we know you agree. After all, we are right Right?"

The most obnoxious (or what I find them to be most obnoxious) are the "common knowledge" types...where there is some truth that is so self evident that a logical and factual explanation isn't needed..its just a belief based on some crazy talking point or sound byte.

Ann tosses back as good as she gets tossed at and that is a lesson for all, don't' you think. Will Simon and I ever agree? Rarely. Is this in keeping with the blog's purpose? Probably. Can it be done better? Assuridly.

Wow . . a post from you that is thoughtful and pointed without any bad names or profanity!

Yes, I sound righteous (and I'm willing to get kicked off for it), but you surely are aware that many of the regulars here believe you to be in the exact same category as Reality Check.

However - and I'm not trying to flatter you - you are obviously highly intelligent, articulate and able to make your views known in a persuable manner - shoot, you made me actually consider some of your points recently. Then you went and classified me in the same group as "Hitler Youth" - a term I consider especially hateful as my wife's parents were beaten by the real thing during WWII.

I'm not one of the best commenters, but this particular banning was long overdue! I kept thinking he'd eventually realize he was able to have his say without being an obsessive troll and he'd chill, but no.

Well done. I don't mind the debate on the blog; I don't mind that you don't share all my views (and anyone who shares 100% views of anybody is someone to be wary of)but you have done good work here today. If I should go over any lines, please let me know. And Hdhouse, if your posts were as lucid and civil as the post you just wrote, I wouldn't be wary of your views.

just so you know, my mother's family ALL were lost to that madman...every last one who remained in Europe (not just Germany) and only that small branch that came here well pre-hysteria survived so I don't use the term lightly.

The most insideous aspect of the entire episode was that in a time of great social (not just jew or dissident v. power) and political strife, certainly not unlike today the first possible cannard out of those in power was a shout stemming from some ill defined and smirky nationalistic fervor.....and when the right wing zealots who indeed do inhabit this blog trot out the "traitor", "hate America", "liberal pinko commie socialist" swill, well please be advised that liberals in this country have been hearing that kind of branding for years and during this current administration and general bent of society it is more shrill than ever.

I have served my country well. I love my country and if you want to debate American History from a dozen directions, bring it on. But you on the right wing of the right wing on here should refrain from tossing the traitor/hate America thread around unless you want an immediate "moronic" label in return because if that is what you believe the liberal "agenda" is, then you truly are.

Jon Swift said..."With regard to "trolls" I recommend laughter and a thick skin. It's much more liberating than asking your readers to nurture your sensitive soul."

You think I am being a hypocrite, but you are wrong. My support for free speech includes preserving a good speech forum here on my blog and getting rid of the noise that was ruining the speech.

This post isn't about trying to shut down what people say on other blogs (e.g., AutoAdmit). It's about maintaining my place and not letting a bad-faith intruder appropriate what is mine for his purposes. Everyone that I delete here is free to have his own blog.

Sweet!! Thank you, Ann. It was starting to get to that point where I'm not eager to read or participate in the debate again. Arguing in good faith is one thing. But the malice of some of the worst offenders is just destructive.

A few years ago I posted on the Atlantic Monthly Forum fairly regularly, until it went private.

Some of the folks there disagreed strongly, but not bitterly, and I had several multi-post debates with several folks on very contentious issues that were very enlightening, but with their display of the contrary opinion, and my re-examination of my own.

I really missed that, until I found this site. One thing I miss here is the length of the arguments. Some there would go on for weeks; here they seem to peter out in 24 hours.

That site had its idiots as well, mostly lefties, full of themselves and profanity, and a few righties also, full of -isms and bile. That I ddn't miss. I'm glad to see some sanity returning here.

I'm sure I'm on Ann's list because I frequently express disgust with her obfuscation and tend to be the least bit sarcastic and respond harshly when my patriotism is questioned, I am called a traitor, anti-American, a liar, or that I know nothing about the military or even actively hate the military and am even working actively to undermine it (even though my wife is active duty and has already done two tours in Kuwait).

I'm sure there will be all the usual suspects will appear and say, "you started it. Before you came we all were happy as we cheered the absolute brilliance of Ann's observations. We were so happy to find the blog of a self professed moderate democrat who agreed with us. It was as if Saint Joe Lieberman started his own blog."

I have one question for you Ann. Is Cedarford on your list? His screeds are nothing but hate-filled bigoted ravings. A couple days ago he called me a cock sucking anti-American, terrorist lover. And I lower the level of discourse!

Ann responds to Jon Swift.. "You think I am being a hypocrite, but you are wrong. My support for free speech includes preserving a good speech forum here on my blog and getting rid of the noise that was ruining the speech."

I was discussing this very thing last night at dinner with the friend that turned me on to the blogs. Specifically about the abuse of your blog, but generally the ignorance we have that our rights have to be protected by individual responsibility and accountability.

It seems that lots of folks think of individual rights as their personal rights and interpret the gaurantees for themselves.

I'm more hurt that you had to ban someone based on their behavior than by the ban itself.

One thing that hardly ever works is a direct challenge/rant at Ann. Just because she throws out a topic and frames it in a way to stimulate comments, doesn't mean she's hanging around for a discussion. Sometimes yes.

Feel free to challenge her but don't take it personally when she doesn't respond.

Edjiamikated Redneck -- I share your preference for longer discussions. It's a pleasure to have space and time to develop arguments. On the other hand, we've all learned the virtues of brevity from the Internet.

The pace of this blog and the crowd of comment make extended argument nearly impossible. This is the place to sharpen your wits, but only on the grindstone of the public.

There still are, however, other venues where you might hone them to a finer finish. If you aren't already familiar with it, you might investigate AmbivaBlog. A couple of weeks ago, for example, I commented in this thread and found myself in a reasonably extended discussion with a knowledgeable person who had just the background to challenge what I said. It was a pleasure, although there was no little disagreement, and it seems Amba and at least one of her other regulars appreciated it as well. And you will find many other examples of good, extended discussions. Amba is a superb writer, whose outlook and sensibilities are very congenial to my own and who has a following of other Althousians. So, I recommend poking around over there if you want perhaps a bit more elbow room. I say this with the caution that Amba can skewer idiots with unmatched efficiency, but, like any blogger, I'm sure she appreciates reasonable people dropping by.

Well thanks, but I'm sure Ann's pets (Pogo, Simon, Ruth-Anne et. al.) disagree. And since I am so mean to them, and Ann, I am sure I am on the hit list. I'm not sure if Maxine is a teacher's pet or not. Sometimes she can make some Althouse like comments and be so obsequious that Ann must love it, but when she goes on her Tom Cruise inspired "no such thing as mental illness" rants, even Ann must be a little turned off.

I think this observation gets at the core of the problem here on Ann's blog. I think it is accurate to say that there is a certain mindset within a certain faction of the Left(I am trying very hard to be fair and general)that cannot abide the idea of someone like Ann(a moderate-to-left Law Professor at a liberal University)who doesn't toe the accepted "Liberal-Progressive" ideological line. They can't walk away from that reality, and feel compelled to resist it with all they are worth. For myself(decidedly Conservative), I neither feel the need to read only the opinions of those with whom I agree, or, more importantly, the obsession to argue ad infinitum with others on the Right who don't agree with me on every issue. At some point, maturity and experience teaches us all that there are many opinions in politics, and a wide blend of life experiences and influences that produce those opinions. There are those on both sides who seem unable to accept that reality, but it mostly seems the younger among that crowd who feel obligated and driven to fight it on a daily basis. That daily effort results in growing frustration when others don't appear moved by the brilliance of the arguments advanced, and then comes the predictable increase in invective and vitriol--and the apparent wish that an absolute deluge of comments will drown out the offending views. If the views of Ann's(no matter how moderate or reasonable)that seem to drive this particular crowd so crazy were coming from, say, Sean Hannity, I think they would just ignore and dismiss. The fact that the perspective comes from someone they believe should be "one of theirs" really seems to be the crux of the problem for them. That somehow seems to bother them at some core level, and threaten their sense of how things should be. Whatever the cause or motivation, I, for one, have found it tiresome and off-putting, which might just be part of their objective. And, before someone comes back and says I just can't stand listening to facts that refute my world view, I want to make it clear that I appreciate being given clear factual evidence that I hold opinions that are inaccurate or misguided. One never learns as much listening to those with whom we agree as we do listening to persuasive, measured voices from the other side. The voices causing the discord around here have been neither measured or persuasive.

Glad to see this. I've been visiting Althouse less frequently because the cacophony in the comments.

Ann Althouse said:

3. I can't delete accounts or bar people. That is controlled by Google. I can only delete comments. I don't like having to write to Google and I've never done it, though I have threatened to do it before. Unfortunately, it is my only other recourse. But this is my blog, and you commenters are guests. If I tell you to leave, you need to leave.

Granted, I run a nano-blog, perhaps it only rates being a pico-blog, on the blogosphere. The number of comments I get in a year probably don't match what Althouse gets for a popular single post. But, this lack of ultimate control with third-party blog hosting is the single most important driver behind the decision to host my own blog - control over software (application and upgrades), design, comments, etc. There is a subtle satisfaction, like a sip of excellent coffee, derived from blocking a particular IP address at the router. The bastards never make it inside the gate. That's the upside. The downside is the extra system admin work to manage the site. Not a problem for techies.

"I think it is accurate to say that there is a certain mindset within a certain faction of the Left(I am trying very hard to be fair and general)that cannot abide the idea of someone like Ann(a moderate-to-left Law Professor at a liberal University)who doesn't toe the accepted "Liberal-Progressive" ideological line."

Undoubtedly. I've been the target of the same, and more than once, taken heat from the administration. That's mostly why I blog anonymously. My point, however, was that Ann Althouse isn't Ann Coulter. I find her tone calm and reasonable, and fail to understand how those who respond so violently justify it.

Would they do the same in the classroom if they were Professor Althouse's students? And if not, why not? She certainly seems ethical, and not the sort to engage in grade retaliation. So if they would viciously attack her here, why wouldn't they do it in her classroom?

Would they do the same in the classroom if they were Professor Althouse's students? And if not, why not? She certainly seems ethical, and not the sort to engage in grade retaliation. So if they would viciously attack her here, why wouldn't they do it in her classroom?

You bet your sweet ass I would. I had a professor just like her in Law School (claimed to be "liberal" and "moderate", really wasn't. Heck, she was even blonde.) She didn't like me much either because I challenged her.

She was also the student adviser to Law Review and when one of her pets was caught in plagiarizing almost her entire paper that was going to be published in the law review she tried to protect this student and even tried to let her stay on law review. Coincidentally, it was me who uncovered the plagiarism, and if I hadn't pushed the issue, at some personal risk to myself (the student threatened to sue), the student would have gotten off scott-free. I also tried to force the professor to resign as student adviser because of her extremely unprofessional conduct, but no one would support me in that endeavor.

To speak to whether abusive commenters would be equally abusive in Ann's classroom, let me assure everyone that the Altschoolhouse looks like Ja'k'ed up monkeys slinging dung at one another. We're certainly more concerned with viciously besmirching her name than trying to figure out what the hell the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine is.

Anything that even slightly contradicts anything Althouse, or Palladian, or Sippican Cottage or Maxine Weiss says is mutilated to a bloody pulp.

-That Sippican...(takes a drink) I was terrified of him. Everyone was terrified of Sippican. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than post after Sippican. Even quxxo/jacquescuze/reality check was frightened of Sippican.-What did he do?-He used sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire.-I understand he also nailed your wife's head to a coffee table. Isn't that right?-Oh, no. No. No.(Camera pans to show woman with coffee table nailed to head.)-OK, yeah, well, he did do that. Yeah, yeah. Sippican was a cruel man, but fair-After Sippican nailed your head to the floor, did you ever see him again?-Yeah.....after that I used to go to Althouse every Sunday lunchtime to apologize and we'd shake hands and then he'd nail my head to the floor-Every Sunday?-Yeah but he was very reasonable about it. I mean one Sunday when my parents were coming round for tea, I asked him if he'd mind very much not nailing my head to the floor that week and he agreed and just screwed my pelvis to a cake stand.

I lurk here regularly but comment only infrequently. I'm not particularly a fan nor a detractor: I think she can be thought-provoking at times, other times she seems somewhat self-absorbed to me. And I'm sure if it wasn't for a commonly-shared disdain for the silliness and viciousness that pervades left wing political activism these days, I would be in disagreement with her far more than otherwise.

But I can also see what she is trying to do here: that is, build a discussion community that is something other than a typical left or right echo chamber. She's not perfect at it, but she probably does a much better job than myself, (or anyone else that posts here for that matter) could ever do. And that very obviously is threatening to a growing number of individuals, why, I'm not entirely sure.

So regardless what I think of her positions on issues or the quality of her posts in general, I'm rooting hard for her to succeed in this particular endeavor. And may thousands of other unique individuals succeed in much the same way.

I don’t very often just chime in with a yeah me too, but good move Ann. Maybe some of my favorite commenters will come back, too. (Several have indicated above they’re happy with this move). And since we’re talking about commenters, this may be a good time to make this point: I have many times checked out the blogs of your good commenters to find their writing in your comment section more interesting than what they write on their own blog. I think you bring out the best writing from a lot of people (along with the worst in a few as we have seen recently).

Dbrooks, I think you really nailed the reason for the escalating vitriol.

Freder, Congratulations. It looks like you may have made a psychological breakthrough on why you dislike our “moderate” “liberal” blonde law prof so much.

Oh, I knew exactly who she reminded me of from the first day I stumbled across this blog.

But let me unequivocally state that I have no reason to suspect that Ann's legal and professional ethics are as lacking as Prof. XXXXXXXX's. I assume that if Prof. Althouse were in a similar situation, she would have dealt with the situation with the seriousness it deserved.

I posted the guilty party's name for a few minutes but decided to remove it. Not because I can't prove everyone of my accusations (even after all these years, I still have a copy of the paper), but because I bet I would be unfairly accused of character assassination. Turns out my beloved professor is now teaching at a 1st tier (at least by Seven Machos' definition) Law School.

Well before the annual meeting of the right wing good old boys and girls settle in by the campfire and someone brings out the guitar...

just a few agenda items to work through -

rightwingprof and dbrooks...

out of curiosity...why is it O'k for RWP to teach from his slant when it isn't O'k for the so called liberal professors to teach from your perception of a liberal slant? Is there a double standard I'm missing?

And while we are on it, I don't agree a lot with Ann but I don't attack her..but to call her a moderate liberal... puuullllleasssse. Get new calipers to measure with ok?

And before you all gloat and backslap each other to death because of the force reduction of the liberals on this blog (and reality check was far too inconsistent and of course suspect-even without knowing the history), I would like to point you all to a fairly well heard exchange on the Sean Hannity radio show about 3 weeks back:

Sean: We are talking to Richard in Atlanta...go ahead Richard.Richard: Sean you are a great American.Sean: Well its always good to hear from a great American.Richard: Well you are a great American.Sean: Thanks Richard so what's on your mind today.Richard: I want to talk about the ACLU...Sean: (Interrupts)...there is NO GREATER THREAT to America and our values than this liberal cabal and their hate America message...Richard: That's totally right Sean...they are opposing free speech by a local fellowship at our school..to use our schools ... for meetings.Sean: That is so typical of the ACLU. The hurt society and want to do harm on every decent law abiding citizen. You are a great American if you are opposing this. Keep up the good fight.Richard: Well, we are bringing David Duke in ..... (line goes dead).

moral: never give quarter to your enemies and always be a little suspicious of your new found friends.

Get someone else to blow your horn and the sound will carry twice as far.—Will Rogers

That said, it is good policy never to praise or even to refer to other blog commenters in the third person.

Saying anything at all about some commenters is like hugging your 12-year-old—you will get elbowed in the ribs and insulted.

On the other hand, praising a blog and its author, as I did upthread, is acceptable to most normal bloggers, as it may drive up traffic a bit.

The best practice, though, is to stick to the discussion at hand, and leave your opinion of your interlocutors in the dark recesses where they belong.

One more thing:

hdhouse -- Taking some other of Will Rogers' advice and feeling well-disposed toward everyone is not a bad thing. It's a waste of time to regard people of other political opinions as an "enemy." Of course, one draws the line at real enemies—criminals and those who would do us violence in this world—but neither you nor I have those sorts of enemies among most of the people we meet, online or in person. Not imagining or creating enemies is always preferable and frees up the limited energies we have in this life for better purposes.

I think, B, you have hit upon the reason so many trolls show up repeatedly at blogs run by and filled with "right-wingers" or others they claim to despise. There's a little of the love/hate thing going on; they can't let go of their defensive posture of hostility for fear they will get hurt again.

Theo...there is no one on this blog who gives me a second thought to be honest.

Obviously what gets under my skin is the immediate resorting to "unAmerican, traitor, terrorist lover, yada yada" stuff that is trotted out.

Now I'm a little saddened by all the conservative handwringing because those awful liberals on here just won't shut up and mind their own business...they are just ruining it for all of us...hence the Sean Hannity story...

anyway, i haven't lost sleep nor am i going to. as my mom used to say, you never new the person before today and you may never see the person after today...what's the difference about today.

Freder Frederson said..."I have one question for you Ann. Is Cedarford on your list?"

And Elizabeth said..."When I first saw this thread I immediately assumed she meant cedarford. Stupid of me."

I second that nomination.

johnstodder said..."Reality Check will not be missed. I regret every time I thought it was worthwhile to counter his comments."

I don't. He was an idiot, but there are a lot more people who read this blog than who write comments. When you comment, even when in the middle of a heated debate, you've got to keep inmind that you aren't writing private email, you're writing in a public forum. The conversation doesn't just include you and your interlocutor. There've been times when I've written lengthy replies without any hope that they'll be responded to, but it's worthwhile because (a) writing is inherently valuable to me and (b) even if the other person is never going to be persuaded, someone reading the thread who doesn't comment might be.

hdhouse said..."i notice that a thread search/find of 'hdhouse' pops me up under Simon ..."

It's good to want things, HDH, but it's never going to happen. I'm just not that into you. Sorry.

Thanks. It really doesn't bother me to be called an idiot, or some of the other things I have been caused here (or over at Volokh.com, where some of my suggestions, esp. about Executive power, have been called risible). But what did/does bother me is when our esteemed hostess is automatically attacked personally on almost every thread.

For all - Ann has tried Word Verification, and then comment moderation, in order to keep the tone here civil. I vastly prefer the ease and responsiveness of the present system. But the danger here is exactly what we have seen recently, that it is now too easy to say nasty stuff. I suspect that if we want to keep commenting here as easy as it is right now, we all have to make sure that we remain civil.

There are a couple of right-wing posters that have called me names, but nothing like what I've been called on some right wing blogs (the best one was the time I was accused, apparently in all seriousness, of practicing witchcraft).

In general I like coming in here as a right-leaning, but open discussion blog.

A similar blog (though more openly political) where the original host is right-leaning but welcomes debate from across the spectrum is

I did get called "cool" in one very particular context tonight, though, and by a teen-ager (unrelated and with no obligation to me in anyway, no less). One of the more shocking moments in my recent life.

"I'm sure I'm on Ann's list because I frequently express disgust with her obfuscation"

If she disgusts you, why are you here?

"You bet your sweet ass I would."

In other words, you have no sense of decorum. Consider growing up at some point.

"why is it O'k for RWP to teach from his slant"

You don't read well, do you. I don't. Politics never enter my classroom from me, and when my students talk politics before or after class, I keep my mouth shut. I never let current students know what my politics are. Never.

Furthermore, I know exactly one conservative professor who regularly inserts his politics into the classroom. One. We tend to know each other and keep under the radar. University administrators, diversity offices, deans of faculties and students offices tend not to react well to conservative faculty who don't keep their mouths shut.

As far as your being insulted, frankly, I couldn't care less. I don't care if anyone is offended. I'm pretty sick of the "world revolves around my feelings" narcissism. If somebody calls you anti-American, perhaps you should try a different response than stomping your feet and squealing like a small child.

In other words, you have no sense of decorum. Consider growing up at some point.

So when a professor obfuscates, distorts the truth and outright lies, tries to cover up instances of plagiarism (and I am talking my personal experience in Law School, not Althouse), I should just keep my mouth shut because "decorum" demands that I respect a woman with no sense of ethics or professionalism?

Sippican: I had that as one of my theories, but I like to think that one decent thing about "Quxxo" was that when I said he had to leave, he did. Reality Check did not use the same techniques, and the thing he did that made me snap on him was something Quxxo never did, as I recall. Well, Reality Check didn't do it until he did it. On the other hand, Reality Check, like Quxxo, has accepted banishment, so the pattern can continue with a new name.

Freder - As long as you are in the answering questions mood, is this the same reason you post at Volokh? I've never actually run across your comments there, but I did notice repeated mentions of you that were highly unflattering (to say the least). The pattern described in those comments is quite similar to your behavior here.

Re trolldom and the world revolves around my feelings, a recent George Will column:"Many people who loathe George W. Bush have adopted what Peter Wood describes as "ecstatic anger as a mode of political action." Anger often is, Wood says, "a spectacle to be witnessed by an appreciative audience, not an attempt to win over the uncommitted."

As long as you are in the answering questions mood, is this the same reason you post at Volokh?

Naah, I post at Volokh (and I use a different pseudonym over there now because I was temporarily banned because I pissed off Kopel, and by the time my home IP address ban was lifted I had already started posting under a different name from another address, which I continue to use) because libertarians who work for public universities annoy me. It is the height of hypocrisy to decry big government and public education yet draw your paycheck from the state.

I post at a few liberal blogs too. But posting where everyone agrees with you is just sooo boring. I like the conflict.

It is the height of hypocrisy to decry big government and public education yet draw your paycheck from the state.

I tend to agree. I've yet to see one of the libertarian professors (or government workers, for that matter) attempt to justify that, either. Every time, I've seen it brought up, they ignore it. Have you run across any serious attempts to address that issue? How about semi-serious?

I tend to agree. I've yet to see one of the libertarian professors (or government workers, for that matter) attempt to justify that, either. Every time, I've seen it brought up, they ignore it. Have you run across any serious attempts to address that issue? How about semi-serious?

Well, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other (I am not a libertarian, and I think hypocrisy is a pretty minor sin, as sins go). But assuming that they decry government spending on education, from their perspective, it nevertheless seems perfectly reasonable to continue in their positions, while urging us all to cut off the government spending that funnels into their paycheck.

First, a university professorship offers them a platform from which to express their views. Professors aren't regarded with anything like the respect they commanded a hundred or even fifty years ago, but they're still badges of expertise and authority.

Second, insofar as they work at a public university, the choice they face is not between their occupying a professorship and drawing a salary, on the one hand, and the money going back to the people on the other. Instead, it's likely just a question of them or some other professor occupying the professorship. If they supported themselves independently by consulting or something, and sent the check back to the government, it's not like the government would refund the (comparatively piddly) amount of the check to the people either. So there's no net benefit to their leaving academia and entering the market -- we (viz. the public) are stuck paying the bill either way.

If they're the moralistic kind of libertarian, of course, for whom taxation is theft and government paychecks are receipt of stolen goods, then obviously that's not going to fly as an excuse. But I don't think the Volokhoi are that kind of libertarian.

First of all, I'm not sure who the alleged anti-public-education libertarian university professors are. Glenn Reynolds and most (possibly all) of the Volokh Conspirators favor public funding of education, for example. Many, perhaps most, libertarians support public education, although most oppose the specific way it currently happens.

Secondly, libertarians are opposed to the government (a) paying for stuff it shouldn't be paying for and (b) taking money from people to pay for (a). Libertarians are not necessarily opposed to people taking advantage of the benefits that the government has already bought and paid for. Refusing to drive on a road because you think it should be a private toll road instead of a public road is "dippy", not "libertarian".

Finally, even if your libertarian leanings are so strong that you consider consumption of government benefits to be as bad as supporting the continuation of those benefits, a limited amount of government handouts can still be justified. When I subtract the value of the government services I have willingly consumed from the amount I've paid in taxes over the years I find that the government owes me a fairly substantial debt. If it cut me a check for that amount tomorrow I'd cash it with a clear conscience.